Posted on 06/27/2016 7:10:19 AM PDT by NRx
TEXIT!!!!!!
We have to have diseased and criminal illegal aliens for our population because we murder all our babies. Seems axymoronish.
600 yards is point blank. Just shoot out to 1500, it’s a good mid range.
All opinions aside, there’s only one way this mess gets fixed.
Alberta would likely go too.
Right to life Ping
Right to life Ping
Safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and rare.
Yeah, right. Legal.
During the 2012 Republican presidential debates, Newt Gingrich brought up the possibility of restricting the Supreme Court at least on a few issues. At what does there have to be a serious discussion of reigning an out-of-control SCOTUS in?
Ignore the ruling. What is Odumbo going to do? Call out NG troops and enforce it at the point of a gun?
Just change one word in the law, and force the SC to rule again, repeat over and over until the SC gives up.
***One vote deciding the death of all those babies.***
Millions, sitting idly by, allowing that one vote.
Which is worse.
Wouldn't matter. The court completely ignored the severability provisions built into the law. This was purely a political decision, as is made clear by Justice Thomas' dissent. Alito's was almost funny to read, because he goes on and on about how precident and generally accepted legal theories were tossed out the door merely because the justices wanted to. Of course, he didn't mind twisting himself into a pretzel to save obamacare. He's just lucky they didn't need his vote on this, or he'd have had to break out the twister board again.
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency “to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 954 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting). As JUSTICE ALITO observes, see post (dissenting opinion), today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine. I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights-especially the putative right to abortion.
=snip=
Ultimately, this case shows why the Court never should have bent the rules for favored rights in the first place. Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law.
=snip=
The majority’s furtive reconfiguration of the standard of scrutiny applicable to abortion restrictions also points to a deeper problem. The undue-burden standard is just one variant of the Court’s tiers-of-scrutiny approach to constitutional adjudication. And the label the Court affixes to its level of scrutiny in assessing whether the government can restrict a given right—be it “rational basis,” intermediate, strict, or something else—is increasingly a meaningless formalism. As the Court applies whatever standard itlikes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.
Preach it Thomas.
Those “NeverTrumpers” are going to give Hillary the Supreme Court to herself.
Ginsburg has two kids...
OOPS I though she was an old maid...oh well...How she can support abortion is beyond words...
“If Scalia had been there, it would have been 5-4. One vote deciding the death of all those babies.”
Which points out the obvious: we MUST do everything in our power to prevent Hillary Clinton from naming so much as a single Supreme Court Justice (let alone 3-5 over the next 8 years).
That Trump is not the perfect candidate is utterly irrelevant - NO ONE, EVER was the perfect candidate. We have to be mature enough (not aimed at you) to understand that we are in the real world, that no humans are perfect, and to make a rational choice between 2 candidates. Insofar as the Supreme Court is concerned, there is a VERY distinct difference between the 2 of them: Trump SAYS that he’ll appoint Originalists, and even gave us a list vetted and approved of by the Federalist Society (not exactly a bunch of Lefties); whereas, with Hillary, we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that she’ll appoint ALL Lefties.
This choice is not between pure good and pure evil, but since Clinton is as close to pure evil in the political realm as we’re likely to see in this country (or, at least, I pray that this is so), the choice is almost as easy.
Many lives will be lost now because of this. The SCOTUS has the blood on their hands.
This is why it is so important that we elect Donald Trump. The #NeverTrump people are still pouting, and they are willing to give up the Supreme Court because their candidate of choice didn’t win. If Cruz is as pro-life as he claims, he will come out and endorse Trump for the sake of the Supreme Court. I’d say the same about Jeb! and Kasich, but I don’t think either of those two care about abortion.
I’m still looking for that part in the Constitution that says judges can nullify laws.
Women’s health protection loses in the Democrats’ war against women.
This is a nation where the majority of people no longer care about morality, the rule of law, the Constitution, etc. For the majority now only care about "gimmee, gimmee, gimmee".
When the collapse comes, and it will, things will truly get ugly and frightening.
You sound like Lying Ted. She’s not on his list but you’re obviously just trying to start crap or you’re another George Will “conservative”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.